this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
26 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22846 readers
166 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
replaceable@hexbear.net
VILenin@hexbear.net
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
khizuo@hexbear.net
Sulvor@hexbear.net
26
What actually was the extent of 'russian interference'? (hexbear.net)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've looked it up a bit, but the search algorithm is so inundated with shit around the topic I thought I'd try here instead for some pointers.

When libs bring it up I usually engage in some 'whataboutism' and pivot to saying if they think that's an assault on democracy, what about CambridgeAnalytica, or worse, what about the fact that the US funnels EXORBITANT amounts of money into global media manipulation to destroy entire countries.

Good sources anyone? Reading? Podcasts?

BONUS: I'm also struggling to find the source of the exact figures of the US funnelling money towards destabilisation of countries, sometimes worth more than the networths of the countries themselves, or something absurd like that.

EDIT: Thanks for the replies. Somehow the reality of it was lower than my already very low expectations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] itappearsthat@hexbear.net 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Nobody actually knows what the deal with Cambridge Analytica was. It is like a cudgel to illustrate "facebook bad" which is an idea that everyone (me included) agrees with for various reasons, so nobody actually cares about the semantic content of what actually happened.

The common thread between the CA/russiagate stuff is that foreign agents are just so much more effective at microtargeting voters through ad targeting capabilities exposed by social media sites that they were able to subvert the election with a relatively small amount of "misinformation". It is basically unfalsifiable.